response 7 of 14:

Nov 18 18:50 UTC 1999

  Which does a great job of revealing the fundamental pettiness behind
  the RIAA's attitude.

  Nevermind that if all those Dead bootlegs were never traded that nobody
  (including the original songwriters) would have ever made *any* money
  off of them and that the record companies that have handled the Dead over
  the years would have sold thousands of times fewer Dead records if the
  bootleg scene hadn't built a cohesive cult following for the band.

  They'd much rather nobody made *any* money at all than take the chance
  that someone might make a dollar without them getting their cut.

  I think it's obscene of the RIAA, too, to claim to be acting in the 
  songwriters' interests, especially considering the sorts of songs the
  Dead were most likely to cover and the likely attitude towards the
  creators' rights among the big record companies that fund the RIAA.

  I don't think there objection is wholly without basis -- in fact I think
  it's a decent point.  I just am convinced that the RIAA doesn't give a 
  rat's ass for the individual songwriters who may have lost money.

response 9 of 14:

Nov 18 19:09 UTC 1999

I'm sorry, brain fart.  For "RIAA" in myy resp:6, please substitute
"ASCAP".  ASCAP is an organization which looks after the interests
of songwriters, which is why they expressed concerns over the 
songwriters of the material covered by the Dead.   As I wrote it,
it doesn't make much sense.  Yeargh. 

response 11 of 14:

Nov 23 00:20 UTC 1999

It is my understanding, but perhaps incorrectly so, that copyright 
owners of published, recorded songs cannot prevent anyone from making 
and selling their own cover recordings of that song, so long as 
royalties are paid.

I am not sure, however, if that would apply to authorized (a la 
Grateful Dead) bootlegs.

response 13 of 14:

Jul 19 05:27 UTC 2001

(I'm surprised, with all the crap and goings on with Napster, that this
item hasn't gotten more hits.) 

Royalties are monies paid to the originator of the work by an second party
who wishes to perform that work.  Royalties only enter the picture when
Person B want's to perform/cover Person A's music, and generally, only in
a recording-oriented manner.  Theres a lot of bands/performers who do
improptue covers of other artists' music; perhaps here is where the
royalties get lost, but it's such a minimal "loss" IMO as to be ridiculous
to even remark upon. 

The recording companies that argue against bootlegging are mostly whining
about money loss.  But I would say that the more important complaint would
be one posed by the artists: live bootlegged music is not always the best
presentation for the music, as it lacks the control provided by
professional sound engineers.  And most musicians I know (being one
myself, I have to agree) would rather be in control of what is presented
to the world as their work, rather than be at the whim of the public's
(often limited) capacity to capture their artistry and distribute it.

In recent years, a lot of musicians have recognized the listeners' desire
for more "live" recordings and have responded.  This is pretty smart.  Not
only does it assuage the artists' worries about how live works are
presented to their audiences in recorded format, but it fills the
listeners' want and compels those listeners to catch a live show.  Shows
are major money making events for musicians, as much and often more
important than record sales when it comes to the bottom line.  The quality
of today's music scene is very much geared toward recordings presenting
the music in a basic, polished form and performances providing a platform
for the music to take on the life and spirit the performer intends for it.